LongHopCassidy
International Captain
There's more than a case for Border. Sometimes it's about more than just world records.
I'm not sure why. Gilchrist has spent most of his career at 7 and has never spent more than 1 series as a regular number 6 (West Indies 2003).LongHopCassidy said:A bit early in the piece, but I think Gilchrist should be nominated for number 6 as well, when we get there.
yeap. please bear in mind that we do have a minimum criteria to qualify for selction. Gilchrist will not be able to make it for any position other than 7. no 6 is reserved for an all-rounder.Mister Wright said:I'm not sure why. Gilchrist has spent most of his career at 7 and has never spent more than 1 series as a regular number 6 (West Indies 2003).
Indeed he's a fine batsman.nightprowler10 said:Sachin for me in this one. I am a little surprised by Yousuf's figures at this position.
In that case dare one suggest that he is classed as an all rounder then, especially looking at the options available and their lack of real suitability to batting 6.bagapath said:yeap. please bear in mind that we do have a minimum criteria to qualify for selction. Gilchrist will not be able to make it for any position other than 7. no 6 is reserved for an all-rounder.
No. He has been selected in all his test matches as Australia's wicket keeper, so therefore he should go up against all the other keepers of the era. What basis we are using to select the keeper is yet to be determined, whether it be batting skill, keeping ability or both. I don't agree with number 6 being only for an allrounder, but if those are the rules, technically Gilchrist is not classified as an allrounder.marc71178 said:In that case dare one suggest that he is classed as an all rounder then, especially looking at the options available and their lack of real suitability to batting 6.
Only 1986-2006 stats are used (otherwise Border would have 10000+ runs at 50+ average).JBH001 said:Well, I wanted to go for Crowe (a superb batsman) but in the end had to go for Sachin(superber).
One query as regards the records posted at the top - when posting the records of batsman (career and position) who played pre-86 and post-86, are you guys (bagapath and aussietragic) only putting up the post-86 stats?
I certainly hope so, otherwise it would skew judgements etc.